AUTHENTICE LANGUAGE TEACHING
THROUGH CULTURE-SIMULATION IN THE CLASSROOM

Leon A. JAMES
University of Hawaii

I am grateful to Andre Boudreau for inviting me to give this presentation. He
is among those who remember my course in psycholinguistics, which I gave at
Laval University in the fall of 1963 at the behest of Professor William Mackey.
It was a socially friendly atmosphere for which I was grateful, but for me
intellectually, it was somewhat innocent. I was a brand new Ph.D., McGill
style, coming into the Gallic frame of academic thought! Though really a
Rumanian (from birth), McGill turned me into an American. The bicultural
marriage lasted only a year, and much to the expressed chagrin of my Laval
friends, I disappeared into a career in the States as a Wallace Lambert trained
social psychologist. But before I left Quebec I had the good fortune of
attending almost a dozen lectures by Dr. Roch Valin on Gustave Guillaume's
linguistic- cognitive method of analysis.

At the time I understood little of it (I now must confess) though I was
impressed by Dr. Valin's masterful expositions; through him I found the
"methode psychoχmecanique" very beautiful, very attractive. A few
years later I came across a review written by John Carroll, then at Harvard,
discussing Guillaume's work and its significance for language teaching. I
remember being very much chagrined at Carroll's totally negative view on psycho
mechanics. It was obvious to me even then (thanks to Valin's lectures) that
Carroll had completely misunderstood Guillaume's method, thinking of it as sort
of mystical rather than beautifully rational, which is how I saw it through
Valin.

Perhaps then I internalized some of Valin-Guillaume, and some readers of this
article may see influences from that source. In that case I am happy and
grateful to acknowledge this intellectual debt. Readers will also see the
influence of Noam Chomsky in my focus on depth of utterance and my description
of sentence production as an ontological activity. I have always thought that
Chomsky and Guillaume were quite compatible and mutually enriched each other.
Of course there might also be the view that I had misunderstood both and the
pleasantness between them was only my own fancy. Readers must decide whether what
I have brought together is genuine and useful.

My most recent intellectual debt goes to Emanuel Swedenborg whose ideas on the
nature of "depth" are restated in what follows. He was an eighteenth
century scholar known for his works in science, engineering, metallurgy,
anatomy, theology, psychology, and other fields of knowledge. There has been a
steady increase in the number of English translations of his works since 1850 50 that now E.
Swedenborg has one of the longest list of titles to his name in the National
Union Catalog. I believe that I am the first to
introduce his ideas on "depth" to linguistics and education. Van
Dusen (1974; 1971) is the first to my knowledge to introduce Swedenborg's
notion of depth in psychology.

Of course, Freud talked of depth of psychodynamic activity but his method of
dream and word analysis as not rationally compelling and so could not be
universally adopted or used. There is also the idea of depth in folk knowledge
as when we're taught that La Fontaine's fables have a moralχthe latter being
the formers deep structure. And so it is with our enjoyment of singing, the
message being carried by the lyrics reflecting a deeper universe of feelings
and strivings. Rather than say that here is a new idea or definition of depth it
will be obvious that there is only one idea traveling throughout these various
domains of intellectual endeavor.

Depth leads me to the idea of ontology in that prior gives rise to later in
causal or pragmatic sequences. The learning of an utterance is nothing but its
ontology just as learning to walk is nothing but physical maturation. Ontology
and language learning is one sphere, the sphere of culture learning, which is
nothing but socialization. I will show that culture learning is arrange able in
the classroom; this I call culture-simulation techniques. And this is the real
and pragmatic meaning of authenticity, namely that which simulates
cultureχlearning in an effective believable way. How to achieve this is the
subject of this article.

1 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS

Language teaching will mean the instructional
attempt to provide an effective learning environment for achieving
communicativeχcompetence. Thus, though I don't teach a language I am
nevertheless concerned professionally with language teaching since my social
psychology or psycholinguistics involves issues that pertain to creating an
effective learning environment for language acquisition (James, 1967; 1970a;
James and Gordon, 1974). Communicative competence is a term we started using
fifteen years ago when we were all desperate about the fact that though
students passed the courses and the tests, they showed little inclination to
talk or read. Other terms cluster closely with communicative-competence,
namely, language use, liberated speech, linguistic proficiency, degree of
bilingualism, functional language skills, oral and written literacy,
transactional engineering, and others (see James, 1970b; 1972; Savignon, 1972).

The attempt to provide an effective learning environment for achieving communicative-competence
is indeed the central issue for language teaching, and I mean to offer here a
solution to the question of how to achieve this. My brief answer is contained
in the title of this article; I will now outline this orientation (see also James
and Gordon, 1976; 1978b; 1979b,c).

2 COMMUNITY-CLASSROOM

I've been teaching the same introductory college course for the past twenty
years, which is forty times I've discovered a similar problem language teachers
have: though my students passed the tests and exams in Social Psychology, yet
they did not talk social psychology. Memory-knowledge yes, use of knowledge no!
It took me fifteen years (or thirty semesters) to discover the conditions which
make my students talk social psychology. These classroom procedures and the
learning environment they create may be called communityχ
classroom. I mean to offer the same solution to language
teachers since the common focus is how to get people to talk. Of course people
will talk when they want to say something. To want to say something requires a
social impulse for communication, and this impulse comes only when the
individual is integrated in community, e.g., in social relations.
Community-classroom procedures create a learning environment, which bring forth
the impulse to talk.

Consider the way in which the impulse to talk is inhibited in classrooms. As
the child gets older, classes get larger and more anonymous, until they produce
an atmosphere of social and academic intimidation, stress, and anomie. There is
competition, secretiveness, even a distrust in collective work and rewards. Yet
it is plain to everyone that everything we do as individuals is always within
the context of a community or group. Independent work is only a point of view,
a sort of game, an agreement to overlook the factors that make competition
possible, namely the underlying community or state of integration of the
individual within social groups and activities.

By overlooking community (and pretending in authentically) we create a disadvantageous
environment for learning, since learning is social. It is a community affair,
not individual, since the latter cannot learn alone and apart from others.
These disadvantages have become handicaps to the extent that students are now
used to feeling anomie and alienation in the classroom. This is manifested by
the plain facts of student behaviour in the classroom. Students are scared to
talk to each other! What an astonishing revelation it is for a teacher to wake
up one day not to this factχfor well we all know itχbut to the fact that this
is socially abnormal! People who sit together week
after week, studying the same books, taking notes on the same lectures, sharing
the tribulations of the same testsχand yet afraid to talk to each other,
pretending in the hallways they don't know each other, hiding their work and
feeling uncomfortable showing it to peers, hiding one's notχunderstanding,
inhibiting the authentic flow of opinion exchange, of mutual facilitation and
aid.

That this is abnormal took a long time to sink into my understanding, chiefly
because of false and distracting ideas such as my colleagues were wont of
enumerating, namely, that students aren't motivated anymore as they used to be,
that their intelligence is dropping steadily with each generation, that the
textbook is uninteresting, that the size is too large, that they are not well
prepared, and so on to many other distracting notions. But eventually came the
simple observation that it was a socially abnormal situation that causes these
blocks to authentic exchanges in the classroom. I then began to systematically
introduce instructional procedures intended to counteract the forces of anti-
sociality. Solitary quizzes were turned into dyadic and triadic quizzes with
one "secretary" and three names on the test sheet. Textbooks had to
be shared since there were not enough for everyone to walk home with one.
Telephone numbers were exchanged and plans for joint work were laid. Quizzes
and reports prepared by students were read by all. Contacts were established
across semesters through cassette tapes and videotapes and photographs and
written advice from the Alumni form prior generations. Bonus points were given
and were allowed to "travel" (i.e., given away to someone who needed
it more for grades). And many other such things (see my descriptions in James
and Gordon, 1978a; 1979a).

The results were plainly to be seen. Students no longer felt alienated from
each other. Visitors to class (and viewers of the videotape sequences we have)
are confronted with the uncommon sight of students talking social psychology
with each other. From this talk comes reflection, and from this, deeper
understanding. Understanding something leads you to have opinions and
observations, and so the springboard for the utterance is laid, and indeed
springs from the depth of the person's sociality. Increased student
productivity was impressive. Typed reports began to assume extraordinary
proportions with most students producing such unheard of things as one hundred
typed pages~ Suddenly they were empowered where before they were handicapped,
and the difference was nothing but a switch from a socially abnormal setting to
one of community.

Authentic language teaching can
take the same road of community- classroom. In the language course also the aim
is not merely knowledge of language but use of it, and this means learning in
community wherein lies the depth that evokes talk (see James and Gordon, 1976;
1g78b; 197gb). Of course many others have drawn attention to this idea and a
good language teacher always provides some of this in the form of social
activities, games, summer camps, travel abroad, dramatic productions, culinary
enjoyments, and so on. I hope that what I say here, the theory that I am proposing,
will be seen to be consistent with much that has already taken place in
language teaching recently, and act to strengthen it through further
justification and confirmation (see also the work in TESOL, such as
"Community language learning" and "Suggestopaedia" and
others less way out).

3 CULTURE-LEARNING IS ONTOLOGICAL

When a teacher is looking around for ways to turn the classroom into a
community-classroom, let the teacher consider that the attainment of objectives
in actual life is always a matter of ontology or gradual development from inner
to outer, or from earlier to later. Hence for the culture-simulation procedures
to be authentic they must be ontological. If they are not ontological then they
cannot be authentic. I shall describe in the next section how we know what is
ontological; but before that, let me confirm the idea that culture- simulation
techniques that are non-ontological are also inauthentic.

Consider the reason why there is such a gross difference in value between a
genuine Rubens and a near-perfect copy of it. Not so much because they look
differentχeven the expert needs magnifying instruments to be able to tell the
difference; but really because the two paintings have a different ontology or history of
development. The "biography" of the forgery is brief and
simple; the motive and impulse that brought it to life is not an authentic
replica of what we value artistically. Is this not also the case with synthetic
diamonds? Their value is relatively low because their ontology is inauthentic;
their biographic history is a mechanical and electric subterfuge despite the
brilliancy with which it simulates that which took thousands of years to
produce ontologically. Finally, consider whether you would be happy that the
test scores of your students greatly improve after they are coached in a prep
course or work shop designed to improve student scores on such tests. The
reason this procedure wouldn't be of great value is that the results are
achieved through a procedure that is not authentically correspondent to its
ontology. As is well known, test scores have validity in that they are
predictors of performance and achievement; but as soon as you disturb the
normal situation (ontological development) and set up an inauthentic procedure
that does not replicate the ontological procedure, then the results achieved
are worthless as preditors.

The overall conclusion one can draw from these case histories is that results
must be achieved through authentic pedagogic procedures or else they are spurious
and ultimately ineffective. And "authentic" means that which
simulates well the ontological procedures that naturally occur in culture-
learning and socialization. The reason students don't learn to talk after years
of language study is because the linguistic knowledge this person accumulates
is not accomplished in an authentic manner due to lack of knowledge in language
teaching regarding the natural ontology of learning to talk. The reason for a
lack of know how in this is attributable to the misconceptions existing as to
the real nature of depth in ontology. I shall now present an analysis of the
meaning of depth through an issue that is completely familiar to language
teachers and linguists namely what is the depth of an utterance. Indeed,
linguistic analysis and grammar are nothing but the explanation of the depth of
an utterance.

4 ONTOLOGY IS THE ANALYSIS OF DEPTH

Though I have dealt professionally with the notion of "depth in language'
for twenty years (e.g., James and Miron, 1967; Steinberg and James, 1971) I
dare confess that it is only recently that I came to under stand it through
Emanuel Swedenborg's explanations. This I am going to share with you now.

The reason it took me so long to get this idea straight has to do with the
spatial metaphor we've been using for depth. Thus we have learned to say that
an utterance is a surface object ("form" and "structure")
whose ontology or "derivation history" starts at the "base"
(bottom or earliest) and winds itself up to the surface through intermediate
depths ("transformational history"). I am afraid that despite the
great perspicuity of generative-transformationalists (like Noam Chomsky) and
that of generative semanticists (like the Lakoffs and the Fillmores) and of
psycholinguists (like Roger Brown) and of cognitive psychologists (like Bruner)
they all got misled by the metaphor of the lake or body of water in their
thinking about depth of language or depth of cognitive processing. Thus the
model based on this metaphor contains this very difficulty, and I can only
wonder how what I am going to present is going to affect existing linguistic
and cognitive theories. Time and history will tell. But now to my presentation.

I will show in the next section that an utterance has in fact three levels or
degrees of depth (surface, intermediate, deepest) but that the true metaphor
upon which the model is to be based is the metaphor of depth we get from a
balloon or other rising and descending object in the atmosphere above the
surface of the earth. Thus we should have to change the way we think of depth
and therefore the way we talk about it; we should have to say that the depth of
an utterance rises or ascends as it gets "deeper" into
the atmosphere; and then that the ontology of an utterance descends to the surfaces
and ascends to its depths. I shall now present the argument (chiefly
Swedenborg's) that may serve to confirm this reversed view of the depth of an
utterance.

5 THE THREE DISCRETE DEGREES OF DEPTH OF UTTERANCE

I have stated that authentic
language teaching means community-classroom procedures that simulate well
the ontology of learning to talk (culture-learning). I have argued that
effective culture-learning simulation is nothing but a genuine replica of the
ontology of an utterance. I am now going to present a method of graphic
notation that will allow you to analyze the depth of an utterance in accordance
with an ontological model based on the rising and descending balloon metaphor.

Note that the balloon metaphor works well for models of bureaucratic
organization. The regular workers occupy the lower floors while the top
executives occupy the top floors. The higher the floor, the deeper you go into
the organizational framework of the company. The penthouse is for the president
or the chairman of the board; to get to the inmost executive branch where all
decisions originate (i.e., most prior in time and first in line) you've got to ascend;to get from the outside (bottom surface) to the
inmost depths (or origin) you must ascend, then you descend to the
surface, to the outermost, the ultimates, the least central. Again,
to go to the centre, or the deeper, or the prior, or the higher, you ascend; to
go to the surface, the periphery, the outermost, you descend.

Now to the utterance. To go to the depths of the utterance you must ascend to
that which is prior; to go to the surface of an utterance you must descend to
that which is subsequent. To go into the depths of an utterance means to
consider its ontology, i.e., derivational history. This is the question, Where do
utterances come from? Consider several views on this question, yet all must
be consistent and mutually interrelated. First, the "pragmatic view:"ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ
ΚΚΚΚGoalsΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ MeansΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ EffectsΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ
1---------------2---------------3

This graphic notation shows that the pragmatic view on the degrees (levels) of
depth identifies the goals as the first cause of action, the means as the
immediate or next cause of action, and the effects as the
ultimate and final condition of the action sequence (surface). Thus, taking any
action whatsoever, whether an expression, gesture, movement, or thought and
utterance, we find its ontology or derivation history starting at the very top
or at its deepest level in what we call the goal of the act. Without a goal
there is no act, no impulse to act. For example, as you walk, the goal
(destination) is constantly providing the energy or impulse needed to complete
the act. If the goal changes or vanishes, there is no arrival at your
destination hence, viewed pragmatically; the goal or intention of an utterance
is its center, top, and inmost depth.

The goal is first, is prior most. Second, is the means. The goal descends into
the means. While there is one goal, one striving end, there are many means,
many methods. Means may be equated with tools, instruments, andΚ vehicles. These are the intermediate degree
of depth for they are the immediate cause of an act (utterance). To have an
intention, then a means of expression, then at last a sensible manifestation
(visual and/or auditory, etc.)-that is the ontological sequence of an act,
viewed pragmatically. The last step is at the very bottom, which is the
surface; that is where the effects, results, and consequences come into visible
and outer manifestation. Note that at the surface degree (stage 3), all
particulars become visible, observable. Prior to this lowest existence of an
act, the history of the act is incomplete. There are no particulars possible
except at the surface level (lowest and outermost degree). The origin of the
utterance (or any act) is the ideal or generic state of that utterance; its
essence, or Esse. Here, at stage 1, only necessary truths exist. These
ideal generic necessary truths correspond to "intentional structures"
(Kates, 1981; James, 1982); these are invariant and correspond to the inmost or
deepest of an utterance; also highest. Then, at stage 2, the utterance descends
into its vehicle or means. Finally, at stage 3, the utterance is descended
completely and is in its outermost externals (surface phonology and visuals).

Consider the same three synthetic stages in the derivational history of depth
of utterance, but from the morphological view:

Once again we start with the origin of an utterance (stage 1) which in the
morphological view may be termed the function of an utterance because it
is nothing else than the goal or intention of the speaker that is the origin
and prior most of an utterance. Next, the function descends into the structure
(stage 2) since this is nothing else than the vehicle, means, or
instrumentation by which the intention or goal or function is being embodied.
Finally, at stage 3, the structure descends into the form, which is
nothing but the external outermost of the utterance, its ultimate existence as
an effect in articulation and vision (or audition), i.e., its use.

Now consider the pedagogic view for the language teacher or applied linguist:

We start with the origin of learning or achievement, which has regard to intentional or motivational
or striving issues at the very heart and inmost of
performance attainment (see James, 1970a; 1982). These highest, earliest, and
inmost issues of pedagogy then descend into their intermediate causes (means;
stage 2) which are nothing but cognitiveχlinguistic structures or
conventionalized habits and repertoires (stock patterns, grammatical
categories, linguistic classes, etc.). These intermediate issues constitute
linguistic, sociolinguistic, and psycholinguistic research. Finally, at stage
3, we are concerned with how these intermediate structures (which are shared
and conventionalized within a speech community) descend into their outermost,
being manifested as a transactional presentation or a
communicative performance.

Finally, consider now the social psychological view outlined earlier in
connection with the idea of a communityχclassroom:

You introduce instructional procedures of community-classroom so that a
learning environment is created which is social, interpersonal, and mutually
dependent for progress. At this earliest stage (stage 1) social forces are
created which have relation to intentional and motivational structures of the
student. The very impulse to learn comes in at this stage and guides utlimates
in its descent. I shall present descriptions of instructional procedures at this
level of classroom management in the next section. Then, as the impulse to
learn created by culture-simulation (community-building and awakening forces)
descends to stage 2, we become concerned with the procedures (means, tools) for
mining learning resources. And in the
third and final stage (stage 3) we become concerned with specific objectives as
manifested in presentations and performances (liberated expression, reading,
talking, thinking, etc.).

I have considered in this section the three degrees in the ontology or
"biography" of utterances (communicative or speech acts). This was
the synthetic sequence that gives the derivation steps from highest and
earliest to lowest and last. I shall now consider the analytic sequence,
which is the reverse.

It will help the reader to consult the graphic notations above as I retrace the
discussion in reverse. Starting with the pragmatic view, the effects of an
utterance (stage 3) is the last stage in its synthetic productive history of
derivation (generation); this last stage of synthesis coincides with the first
stage of analysis (stage 4). This is obvious in social talk or in reading since
the listener or reader takes the ultimate products of a speaker or writer and
gives it some meaning through its depth processing. While utterance production
follows the synthetic sequence 1, 2, 3, utterance-understanding follow the
analytic sequence 4, 5, and 6. Synthesis is thus a descending process, i.e.,
from inmost to outmost, from depth to surface; analysis is an ascending process,
from outmost to inmost, from lowest to highest.

Similarly, looking at the morphological view, understanding an utterance
consists in entering the surface of the utterance at stage 4 and ascending
above the surface into its structure at stage 5, and from there still deeper
and higher into its function (stage 6). Looking at the pedagogic view, we start
with the presentation of an utterance (stage 3), enter its depth by ascending
into its linguisticχcognitive structure (stage 5), ending up at its origin or
function (stage 6). Finally from the social psychological perspective, we start
with the objectives that were attained and are manifested in performances
(stage 4), ascend into the depths of the enhanced learning capacities (stage 5)
and end up in the origin of it (stage 6).

To summarize this section, I have used a graphic notation to show that the
production of an utterance evolves down from intention (function) to
performance (form) through cognitive-linguistic vehicles (structure). The under
standing of an utterance is then a matter of ascending back up to the origin
(function, intention) of the utterance through its intermediates (structure,
cognitive process). In language teaching therefore, we must replicate the three
production phases and the three understanding phases in the order here
described. That will insure authenticity in culture-simulation; raise the level
of performance and learning from knowledge of language to use of language.

6 THE THREE DGREES OF DPTH IN AUTHENTIC LANGUAGE TEACHING

I have spent considerable space in the previous sections discussing the issue
of depth of utterance so as to allow you to confirm yourselves in the idea that
your classroom management issue is nothing more than the issue of the ontology
of talking. The language teacher integrates himself or herself when the
language teaching is authentic. The contrastive situation is common: the
language teacher is not integrated so that the "language" part is one
thing and the "teaching" part is another thing. For example, language
teachers are told that all teachers face the same classroom management issues,
hence language teachers are taught to think in terms of psychological issues,
even counseling and clinical issues. I think the latter is a big mistake (for
an argument, see, James, 1976, 1979c). Rather than a clinical psychological
orientation, what the language teacher needs is a social psychological
orientation married to linguistics. Just as the utterance has depth so does the
acquisition of it; and furthermore, these are the same. The ontology of an
utterance is one and the same with its acquisition; hence its authentic
teaching must also be the same. Only thus can the language teacher integrate
linguistic knowledge arduously attained and teaching knowledge constantly
challenged.

Let us apply the morphological view to this issue using the graphic notation
we've practiced:

Reading the graphic notation as before, and using the metaphor sets previously
established, we can say that language acquisition and use (communicativeχ
competence) originate in the teacher's striving intentions and heartfelt goals
(stage 1); this inmost impulse then descends out of the depths to an
intermediate state of existence (stage 2) which consists of the methods and
structures that create the learning environment in the classroom; at last, at
stage 3, the teacher's originating impulse surfaces as effects in the visible
manifestations of new student acquisitions, learnings, performances and
presentations (i.e., communicative-competence). In other words, at the very
heart of student achievement (stage 3) lies the teacher's pedagogic strivings
(stage 1) expressed through the teaching method (stage 2).

7 CASE HISTORY ILLUSTRATIONS

I will now present a rather lengthy extension of the list of items that a
language teacher may adduce when, upon reflection on the graphic notation I've
introduced, he or she wishes to introduce communityχclassroom procedures. No
new technical knowledge is required but only the use and application of the
notation. This is because the notation is nothing else than a graphic
representation of the authentic metaphor of depth we all already possess by
virtue of our being social managers in every day life (role behaviors). In
other words, learning to use this graphic notation is like learning to use a
microscope or any other analytic tool (see James and James, in prep.) Once you
understand it through practice, you can use it as a "thinking tool"
for discovering how to experiment with authentic language teaching and with
community- classroom. And now the illustrations.

ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ ΚThe graphic representation of the authentic metaphor of depth

Number of
item

Stage 1
items

Stage 2
items

Stage 3
items

1

goals

means

effects

2

function

structure

form

3

intentional issues

linguistic-cognit.
issues

presentation/perform.
issues

4

communityχintegration forces

mining enhanced learning capacities

achieving more elevated objectives

5

authentic language teaching

communityχclassroom procedures

language acquisition and use

6

striving issues

planning issues

mapping issues

7

sympathy

empathy

intersubjectivity

8

harmony

synchrony

melody

9

reputation

convening

camaraderie

10

identification

absorbtion

modeling

The first
five items are those that I discussed in the previous section, while the last
five items are taken from Nahl-Jakobovits (1981, unpublished). Thus, items 1
through 5 are definitional, while items 6 through 10 are particular applications.
You may wish to read this graphic table by rows as well as
by columns and try to justify them rationally, as if you would try to explain
them to students or colleagues. I shall briefly model such reading practice for
items 6 through 10.

Item 6. Starting in the analytic direction (surface up and into base), language
performance and use are nothing but "mapping issues" which is to say
that they are mere effects produced by earlier stages; the particulars of the
circumstance as given in the display (utterance, gesture, etc.). The immediate
cause of mapping is planning; in this case, community-classroom procedures such
as "crowding," "huddling," "milling,"
"instructional singing," "surveying," and many others which
the teacher may opt for. I need to describe these briefly (but see James and
Gordon, 1978a; 1979a).

Crowding refers to the principle that proximity increases familiarity
and liking. For example, using smaller rooms where people are forced to sit,
walk, and stand close to each other, as in a waiting room, bus, discotheque, or
the beach and sports arena. Space does not permit to justify this here, but you
may wish to see the arguments in (James and Gordon, 1976; 1978a; 1979a, c).

Huddling refers to the principle that two heads are better than one. For
example, the "dyadic quiz" is a huddling activity where two students
first discuss then hand in a joint answer ("interactional
discourse"). Or a student gets a "huddle buddy" to go to places
of intimidation for support (e.g., the dentist or the "complaints department"
of some business), or to be available for telephone calls in an emergency when
prior commitments in a food-behaviour change programme are in danger of
temptations, or when a student has been absent or is "behind in the
course" getting a huddle-buddy becomes a community procedure for catching
up activities.

Milling and surveying refer to
activities during which social and academic information is being diffused
through the classroom community. For example, when students walk around in the
class collecting information from peers or reading each other's reports and
exam papers. Or, when the teacher or someone surveys the group by a public show
of hands (e.g., How many have finished?Who doesn't have something yet? etc.); or
it may take the form of "live demography" which helps the community
to socialize and form friendship groups (e.g., How many
like pizza? Who is a vegetarian? Who has traveled to Europe? etc.).

Instructional singing refers to
the use of singing for better memorization of terminology (vocabulary) and for
"song analysis" discussions and reports.

These various planning issues in the form of communityχclassroom procedures are
themselves caused by the earlier issue of striving, about which more below.

Item 7. The heart of communityχclassroom is the sympathy that students feel for
one another. This lives in the social strivings of everyone and taking a course
together conjoins individuals into a "sympathy group" which implies
bonding forces of cohesiveness. As these sympathy forces descend and are
externalized, they find existence in empathy, which is the mutual and
reciprocal concern for the understanding of the matters to be learned and
practiced in the course. Ultimately, the bonding forces of sympathy within
empathy surface as acts of "intersubjectivity." For example, there is
overlap in memory items and knowledge, there is a common history over the
semester, there is transfer of content or opinion in communicative exchanges,
there is communality of evaluation and judgment as clients (students), and so
on.

Item 8. I am adding this item to help you confirm yourself in the idea that
authentic language teaching involves your own integration as a person, which is
to say that you take your clues from yourself, or rather, from your
observations and awarenessβs of the ontology in your growth, progression, and
activities. In this case, another illustration of natural metaphors you already
possess plentifully and creatively, is the metaphor of depth in music or
singing. Synthetically (generatively), music and singing originate from the
striving for harmony, because of our love for it. We are delighted by it, and
we strive for it as a goal. This striving impulse (generic or ideal reference)
then descends out of the depths and finds an intermediate existence in
synchrony, which is a planning issue ("How to achieve it?").
Ultimately, the impulse of harmony, now within synchrony, descends and
manifests at the surface as melody, which is a mapping issue
(presentation/performance).

Item 9. The motivational sub-stratum for authentic language teaching is the
arrangement of a community-classroom environment because the impulse to learn
to talk is always social and interpersonal. As Erving Goffman has detailed in
his micro studies of social interactions, of being polite or formal or plain,
and so on. As Harvey Sacks has shown, talking is a matter of alternating turns.
But as I have argued (James and Gordon, 1976) there has to be a dynamo or motor
to activate alternating turns and to maintain them (dialogue) and this dynamo
is now identifiable: it is reputation or identity. As we know, every utterance
in a transcript is identified as to who said it, or else the talk is
incomprehensible. There is no utterance in the world past, present, or future
that does not have its creator~ Hence, the impulse to create an utterance
(i.e., to talk) originates in the speaker in his or her identity or reputation.
No reputation, no identity, no utterance. Reputation is a striving issue and is
ever within the utterance, to grant it function; and as it descends into the
particulars of the exchange (context), it rests at the intermediate stage of
social "convening" activities. For example, I hold conventions and
exhibits in all my classes as part of the regular semester activities. We had a
successful poster convention on students' attempts to modify their food
behaviour for a week, at which were invited visitors who were eager to hear
from the students what they had gone through, and at which we gave out prizes,
and etc. etc. We had a dance show or social psychology mystery play put on by
the students for each other, irrespective of sizes of classes involved. Another
workable feature has been what I call "the generational curriculum"
which translates as the self- conscious attempt to communicate across the
semesters through documents, archives, and audio and video tapes and other
memorabilia; the most important of these being the audiotapes. These are
prepared by each student for "the next generation" and the student
makes the attempt of "transmitting" all the knowledge acquired in the
course (digested, and in their own words~). These convening activities then
externalize at the bottom or surface, which is the arena for the displays and
transactional shows of relating, and of camaraderie (communicative competence).

Item 10. I bring in this idea but with only the briefest indications here. Let
us start in the analytic direction this time. Modeling is the ordinary method
of culture learning; hence it would be used in authentic language teaching.
Modeling is the ultimate stage; it is the surface or lowest form, and most
external, hence visible to the senses; it is a presentation or performance, a
transaction or communicative act. Modeling is often confused with imitation;
but imitation is inauthentic; it does not have the same ontology as modeling.

Modeling, which is a mapping issue, comes from "absorbtion" which is
its immediate cause. Absorption is the term I suggest for learning and
acquisition under authentic language teaching conditions (community-classroom).
For example, during convening activities (see previous item), students absorb
the skills needed to perform successful modeling acts (e.g., a 5χmm.
posterχtalk to classmates). This is an excellent instance of "mining
community resources mining the enhanced learning capacities that are natural
under authentic community conditions ("It's amazing how they just pick it
up from each other"). Absorptionχlearning is inside modeling whereas
reinforcementχlearning is inside imitation; the latter is not ontologically
authentic because we learn to talk from striving to identify not striving to
achieve a reward (grade, money, status)

In an earlier development of the concept of authenticity in language
teaching (James, 1974, Chapter8) I argued that the teacher needs to evolve
a "personal pedagogic model" so that teaching may be a matter of the
heart, a striving issue, an ideology that lives in the method and in the
curriculum so that the teacher's effort and impulse may live and manifest as
student achievement. The impulse to teach comes out of the teacher's love for
teaching; this impulse of the heart externalizes as classroom methods, first,
then comes to rest in student learnings.

In authentic language teaching, the teacher's primary and reigning impulse is
to communicate in the target language with the students; this motive descends
(externalizes) out of the depths of the teacher's will, taking an intermediate
structure in the teacher's attempts to arrange and provide a
community-classroom environment; then, the teacher's original impulse to
communicate finds rest and manifestation through teses methods in the student's
new acquisitions as evidenced by their communicative acts (language use,
liberated expression).

I will close by listing several research and theoretical issues regarding authentic
language teaching which I believe will be the focus for language didactics and
applied linguistics during the coming decade:

α Talk is spontaneous when it is intentional. (Spontaneous talk is liberated
speech.) Intentionality in talk is a social impulse to act or interact.

α The impulse to act (intentionality) springs into being when the individual is
integrated in community (i.e., social relations take place).

α Cultureχsimulation techniques in the classroom produce community integration
of all those present there (teacher, students, visitors, aids, etc.). From
community integration comes intentionality, and from this comes spontaneity,
which is communicative-competence.

α Acquisition of skills under community integration conditions occurs through
"absorption-learning" (in contrast to "reward-learning"
under conditions of nonχintegration).

α Discourse learned through community integration as absorption may be called
interactional discourse in contrast to solitary discourse. (The former, as in
dialogue, joint writing pieces, editing together; the latter, as in
description, story telling, and expository speech or writing.) Ontologically,
interactional discourse will be shown to develop before solitary discourse.

α The term interior dialogue may be used to designate the talking a person does
by oneself in the course of daily activities and life in community.
Ontologically, reading as a skill becomes useful of meaningful when the reader
is able to make comments to oneself on what is being read. Hence without
interior dialogue, reading cannot be meaningful. (This has implications for
language teaching.)

B I BL I OGRAPHY*

JAMES, L.A. 1967.
"Comments on McNamaraβs 'How can one measure the extent of a person's
bilingual proficiency?" Proceedings of the International Seminar on the
Description and Measurement of Bilingualism. New Brunswick: University of
Moncton.

JAMES, L.A. 1970a.
"Prolegomena to a theory of communicative competence." In English
as a Second Language: Current Issues. R.C. Lugton (ed.)